Date of Decision: January 24, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Petroleum Engineer and Manager
Field: Petroleum Engineering and Management
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner served as a judge, reviewing small capital project decisions, ensuring the utilization of appropriate processes and techniques, and providing feedback to the team.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner presented his scholarly engineering research at conferences, which were included in the published proceedings of these events.
Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner held managerial positions and was involved in significant projects, including a $2.7 billion capital project in the Congo, demonstrating his critical role within the company.
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in Associations: The petitioner’s memberships did not meet the requirement for outstanding achievements.
Evidence of High Salary: The petitioner’s salary did not exceed the required threshold to meet the criteria for high remuneration indicative of extraordinary ability.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: Not applicable.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: Not specifically addressed as a criterion met.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: Not specifically addressed as a criterion met.
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner served as a judge in his professional field, which was acknowledged as meeting one of the criteria.
Membership in Associations: The memberships held by the petitioner did not qualify as indicative of outstanding achievements in the field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner’s scholarly articles were recognized as meeting one of the criteria.
Leading or Critical Role Performed: The petitioner’s role in significant projects and managerial positions were acknowledged, but these did not demonstrate broader recognition beyond his employer.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner’s salary did not meet the threshold to be considered as evidence of extraordinary ability.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner submitted various supporting documents including:
PowerPoint presentations prepared for his employer.
Items related to the importance of energy independence and the oil and gas industry.
Reference letters from colleagues and managers.
Curriculum vitae detailing his professional achievements and roles.
Scholarly articles and conference presentations.
Evidence of his salary and comparison with industry standards.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: While the petitioner satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements by meeting three criteria, the totality of the evidence did not demonstrate the required level of national or international acclaim. The petitioner’s accomplishments were significant within his company but did not indicate recognition or influence in the broader field of petroleum engineering.
Next Steps: For future petitions, the petitioner may consider gathering additional evidence that demonstrates broader recognition in the field, such as awards, significant media coverage, and higher remuneration, to strengthen the case for extraordinary ability classification.
